Lazy Gamers Jungle Adventures Review Is Up

"Sk8rblaze;c-16358184" wrote:

"Pegasys;c-16357912" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16357593" wrote:

"Felicity;c-16357309" wrote:
LGR got a few packs free; however, it didn't change his tone, and so it didn't last very long. I think the word people are looking for is not objective (his reviews, like everyone else's, are subjective) but he doesn't have the bias that a reviewer who wants to keep getting their rewards has. In fact, LGR being dropped from the free-game program so quickly shows that his brand of honesty is not appreciated.

It's weird because he reviews are never "all negative." He has issues with the game play of Sims 4, but he does try to point out what he likes, what he doesn't like, the stuff from CAS, and he will say what he thinks is good within the limitations of the game engine.

Edit: Huge typo.

Is, in fact: objective. Objective in the meaning (looked that up) “undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena”. That is exactly what he does. Which is why I value his reviews even in those cases he has a different opinion than me, because he always explains why he feels a certain way*. Enabling me to judge whether I share his opinion or not. He is not biased. And indeed, his reviews aren’t overall negative, also not in this case. Still people feel very threatened by him somehow. Maybe because he presents facts before giving his personal view?

(*example, I remember him being very enthousiastic about GT, but it became clear to me that it was for reasons I don’t care for myself so I didn’t buy the pack until much later when it was on sale)

But by definition, nobody can be "objective" for a review. Because they use their own personal bias to make the review. Maybe they aren't influenced by others, which is what I think you mean, but it's not "objective."

Objective would be: "There are 125 new objects in the pack, and 22 new CAS items."

Subjective: (which any real review is): "There are 125 new objects in the pack, and 22 new CAS items. Since the gameplay offered by these objects isn't that fleshed out, I don't think the pack is worth the money".

There is no true objectivity in any of LGR's reviews - because there is no objectivity in ANY review, unless all one did was state the facts, which defeats the purpose of a review.

I think the both of you are correct, however, I believe @JoAnne65 and the others are essentially saying LGR tends to be the least biased in his reviews; more objective in the sense he usually presents things as they are, without the EA fanboy sugarcoat.

When you have a partnership with EA, and they’re flying you around the world to see their games, catering you, etc. there is more likely to be a bias towards EA there. Not always, but I’ve seen it myself in a variety of reviews.

I see it in Game Changer reviews. In the ones I’ve seen about Jungle Adventure, they were disappointed, but didn’t harp too much on their disappointments. They’ll explore the temple, say something like, “wow I wasn’t expecting it to be so.. barren” or “umm.. I’m already kind of bored with this” and then they’ll move on and try to counter it with good things about the pack. A review is not supposed to be a video of someone trying to make the pack look good by countering a con with a pro.

Just say what’s bad and what’s good, go into detail of those things, and leave it there. Some of these “game changers” (which is a ridiculous name, because every fan is and should be a game changer) try their best to appear unbiased, but don’t do a great job at it. I don’t think it’s always intentional. When someone gives you something for free, you tend to feel in debt to them, and this could very well be a side effect of that.

How are the bold not the same thing? "Well it didn't take very long to complete this tomb. The layout is nice though." Is this not both 'countering a con with a pro' and saying 'what's bad and what's good'? lol

Also, just a quick sidenote, just because LGR isn't influenced by EA, doesn't mean he isn't influenced. He has an audience. He has his analytics. He has a patreon. And he knows how to cater to that. Just because it's not EA's wallet doesn't mean it isn't somebody's.

Because people like that he's negative about the game, he works that angle. If the large majority of his audience didn't like that, you can bet he wouldn't stick to his guns and keep making videos that get fewer views n all that. He'd adjust his reviews in a more positive light, where he'd still share the negative stuff, but it'd be on the backside of it.

That said, I don't mind his reviews. This last one, like I said earlier, had a weird vibe to it, but don't be blinded into thinking he (or anyone else that makes money off of videos or blogs or whatever) is truly altruistic or something.